Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidential gaffes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, kept by default. Johnleemk | Talk 12:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] US presidential faux-pas, gaffes and unfortunate incidents

I find this to be entirely arbitrary and inherently non-neutral. Even the page title is rather iffy. Merovingian 14:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It was List of Presidential gaffes. No longer. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: Page name has been changed by someone. The correct name is piped at the top now so people know what it now is called. FearÉIREANN 05:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Merovingian 14:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and formally protest Merovingian speedy deleting the article. There is a move option if the title is none too good (I didn't come up with the title, incidently, though I don't really see an issue). - Ta bu shi da yu 14:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  Is faux pas a better word than gaffe ? (it's funny how both words are of French origin :) bogdan 14:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It should be List of gaffes of United States presidents. bogdan 14:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Surely you mean "...by United States presidents"? —Wahoofive (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Move per Ta bu shi da yu. - Kookykman|(t)e
• Weak keep and move to better title as bogdan suggested. PJM 14:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete: I am not sure that this can be kept NPOV. Is Bush the Wiser's vomiting and passing out necesserily a gaffe? It could also be called health problems. Alternatively, move to a better title, like US presidential faux-pas and write an article about the most famous clear-cut examples and how they were handled and what were their consequences. Zocky 14:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Stole my sodding suggestion, didn't you. Rob Church ^Talk 15:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  It was probably the food. The gaffe is not that he vomited, but that he vomited on the Japanese PM. :-) bogdan 14:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• keep for now, but unless notable 'gaffes' by presidents other than GWB emerge (is vomiting, or stating untruths a 'gaffe'?), merge with Bushism. dab (ᛏ) 14:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No longer about gaffes. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move as per Ta Bu; but I'm not sure what the best title would be. Obvioiusly it needs some broadening and a lot more historical perspective. Guettarda 15:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and NPOV. No Democrat Presidents are currently included. Possible examples of gaffes from Democrats include Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman Ms Lewinsky." Jimmy Carter calling Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser John, referring to Hubert Humphrey as Hubert Horatio Hornblower at the 1980 Democratic convention and a mistranslation of a 1977 speech by President Carter in Poland in 1977 saying I desire the Poles carnally. [1]. Capitalistroadster 17:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added in the Carter Poland one. Can you find verifiable links for the others? BTW it is very hard to find Democratic POTUS gaffes apart from Carter's! I've tried to find any. It seems that recent Republican presidents where gaffoholics, whereas the Democrats don't seem to be. (Clinton's "I did not have sex . . . " was neither a gaffe nor a faux pas but a Non-denial denial so is irrelevant here (Its on the NDD page.) It would be interesting to compare the educational standards of recent Republican versus Democratic presidents. Looking at Kennedy, Carter and Clinton all three, in terms of academic attainment or measurable intellectual ability were better than either of the Bushes, Reagan or Nixon. That doesn't mean better presidents, but intellectually more able, which may explain their lack of a gaffe-history. FearÉIREANN 05:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV, unmaintainable, and original research. --Carnildo 20:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per CSD criteria A6 (Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject). Expanding the list of victims to include Democrats would only serve to increase the number of people who are being attacked. --Allen3 ^talk 20:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  Read more careful: Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject ("insult pages", e.g., "OMFG! Joe Random is a l0ser n00bface lolol!!!11").

• Delete- as much as it pains me to vote delete on a very funny article, I have to because 1) It's POV. What makes an incident a "gaffe", as opposed to simple misfortune? For example, Bush choking on the pretzel seems to me to be just bad luck. 2) It's an attack page. 3) It's original research. Reyk 21:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • comment how can it be original research? The mistakes related to presidents are public (and most of them were made live on TV). +MATIA ☎ 22:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The events are verifiable. The clasification of the events as "gaffes" or "faux pas" is original research. --Carnildo 00:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
      • That is ridiculous. They are widely referred to as such. Most of them have gone down in history as notorious gaffes. Calling them original search sounds like clutching at straws. FearÉIREANN 00:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: As per my remarks below, I have to disagree. Most of the list contents are taken widely out of context , framed to mislead, or sarcastically misconstrue the meaning of gaffe (sickness, as pointed out by Zocky, is not a gaffe even if it causes a diplomatic incident). Few have gone down in history as such, because they mostly relate to Bush, and history has yet to render judgement. They also betray a severe lack of knowledge of Presidential history. Harrison, the oldest President until Reagan, delivered his inaugural address on a cool March day without an overcoat (like many Presidents before and since).[[2]] News reports at the time described the weather as mild, not requiring an overcoat, and did not consider Harrison’s removal of coat and hat to be a gaffe. Cause and effect with his death can not be established, although Harrison could be accused of bad judgement given his age. Kennedy, the youngest elected President, famously delivered his inaugural without an overcoat on a bitterly cold day in February.[[3]] This was also not considered a faux pas. Instead, by the logic of this list, Kennedy’s major gaffe did not come until Nov 22, 1963, when he ruined his wife’s dress by spraying brain matter on it. By the same token, Lincoln committed an unforgivable faux pas, when he spoiled the performance of Our American Cousin at the Ford Theatre, due to his urgent need to die across the street. -- JJay 20:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep perfectly valid article on a real topic, which was outrageously deleted without a vote first time around. It just needs clear definition. It should cover gaffes, as in unintentional comments or actions which caused embarrassment or defence. Clinton's denial of having sex "with that woman", for example, was not a gaffe. (It was a Non-denial denial which we already cover on WP.) It was deliberate. Carter's slip up with names, Bush's verbal slip-ups, etc do qualify as gaffes (unintentional and caused embarrassment). The mistranslation of Carter's comments when visiting Poland, though hilarous, does not belong here, as he was the not the author of the gaffe. It belongs in a page about translation gaffes. Or a page about gaffes made about the presidency rather than by presidents. FearÉIREANN 21:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • comment I wonder what would be an appropriate title to include "translation gaffes" too. +MATIA ☎ 22:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I love it. Alexander 007 22:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - and expand of course. +MATIA ☎ 22:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Utterly and permanently unencyclopedic. Especially in the ever-dire list format. These gaffes should be mentioned in relevant articles: if they do not bear mentioning there, they do not bear mentioning anywhere. Wikipedia is not a comedic jaunt through life; it is an encyclopedia. If you think this is hilarious, and that this somehow endows with a quality akin to knowledge, then really, you have to explain why, and not just tell us that it made you laugh. Not one of the keep comments gives a reason other than this. (Transwiki those opting to keep to Uncyclopedia.)-Splash^talk 02:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• strong delete hopelessly unency and an open door invitation for partisan POV additions. --Kalsermar 02:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic, important topic of substantial scholarly interest. Could do with more in-depth study of these events -- how did they affect public approval ratings, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've mentioned how one GWB gaffe hit the US economy and Wall Street when the ejjit replaced a bit of carefully worded Greenspan spin by another homespun Texan term that he may have thought was the same but actually meant the exact opposite to what Greenspan was suggesting. No wonder Greenspan was said to be on the warpath afterwards (Greenspan suggested a slight soft spot, Bush suggested, inadvertently a rough and bumpy road ahead!). One stupid homespun Bush term cost the US economy trillons. FearÉIREANN 05:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but encourage the editors to expand the effects part of the points. James F. (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Delightful! Durova 07:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Obvious POV issues that need to be addressed, although the Bush fixation will remain problematic into the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, has more potential already than a similar list I contribute to- List of U.S. Presidential nicknames. -- JJay 08:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete: Changing my vote after rereading the comments here and considering the overlap with List_of_bushisms. Suggest that FearÉIREANN do some research as soft patch and bumping along are both commonly used in the financial press and mean largely the same thing. Bush's comments date from Tuesday, Nov. 12, 2002, at which point the Dow was down roughly 17% YTD. It rose in the next three sessions, ending with a near 200 point gain on the week, and closed out the year down an insignificant 30 points from the date of Bush's remark. The dow then went on to gain 25% in 2003.[[4]]. It could thus be argued that Bush's "bumping along" gained trillions for the US economy, but in fact there was no real impact, as the markets, unlike blogs, do not react hysterically to non-gaffes. -- JJay 09:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The markets appear to be unlike Wikipedia, too. -Splash^talk 12:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • FearÉIREANN's comment regarding the markets and JJay's rebuttal sum up very nicely what this page, if it is kept, will become. A collection of non-incidents being blown up by one side and the listing ad infinitum of anything the anti-(fill-in-name-of-prez-past-present-or-future here) crowd will use to jump on to make a point, especially the presentday Bush-Bashing crowd. Who really cares whether Bush sr. puked on a PM or Carter wants to have intimate relations with the entire?!? Polish people except anti Bush or anti Carter people? If there's a really noteworthy gaffe then include it in said president's article. If it is just a partisan thing then spend your time more useful and write an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Do we want to set the precedent and create articles regarding gaffes by other professions. An article about gaffes by Hollywood people perhaps? Not that many of the same people who like this list would want to create thát list I suspect.--Kalsermar 17:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. We shouldn't be lured into thinking that NPOV requires that we have as many Democrat gaffes as Republican gaffes, despite the US's status as a 50-50 tribal partisan country. If Republicans are unhappy with how many Republican gaffes are on there, then they should try to add Democrat gaffes rather than complain about the existing ones (unless they're somehow false). As for Bush, I don't think there's a Bush fixation - obviously there will always be systemic bias towards the current president, but the fact is the man has said a lot of very stupid things. --Last Malthusian 09:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Splash et al. FreplySpang (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with expansion and cleanup. Be interesting to see how it looks six months from now. Turnstep 20:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Dubya's best known for his gaffes, whether while speaking or otherwise. If a Republican wants to add Dem gaffes on there, let them. As it's often said "It's a Free Country". Karmafist 21:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pov and vandalism magnet. Anything put here can be rolled into presidential articles. The amount of anti-GWB sentiment on WP is so great that you can shovel it and sell it as fertilizer. Klonimus 05:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Please point to anti-GWB sentiment on this page. I doubt you'll find any. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You must be joking. Considering the cascade of distortions or untruths in the entries for Bush I and Bush II, who incidentally warrant more attention here than all other presidents combined, I think the intentions of the editors are clear. I also think the comment by Last Malthusian that Republicans should try to uncover Democratic gaffes is an excellent argument for deletion. -- JJay 08:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Inherently POV. No uniform definition of gaffe. Not encyclopedic. Vandal magnet. Generally useless, Wikipedia is not lolfunnyjokes.com. Get rid of this worthless page. Vonspringer 07:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a definition of gaffe. Suggest you read it. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and where the hell is the Richard Nixon "Fuck You Australia" screw up? [5][6] I mean that is certainly a big "faux-pas"  ALKIVAR™ 07:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Intersting, but this is the stuff of a coffee table book, not an encyclopedia article. Potentially infinite (which President hasn't screwed up in some way?) with no criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Gamaliel 07:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. — Instantnood 15:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete inherently POV.  Grue  12:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Biased and well short of an encyclopedic addition to Wikipedia. Lackingleft 19:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That has never been a reason to delete an article. Sheesh. Are you saying we can't fix bias? Why, I'll just go and delete Christian views of women then. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Totally silly and a waste of time. This kind of drivel gives wiki a bad name. jucifer 03:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No wonder there is a problem when you can't be bothered actually adding in sources to stuff you add in, just out of context, unexplained quotations. Deliverately adding in unexplained stuff just to 'prove' the article is drivel, is vandalism. FearÉIREANN 03:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: admirable as the desire for "neutrality" might be, it does not mean the suppression of all criticism of anybody featured in a given article. As for the tone, some of the arguments above seem to be bordering on the hysterical at the thought that the supposed gravity of Wikipedia might be dented by the inclusion of a humorous article about humorous events. If the stuff actually happened, and the documentation is available to prove it, it's a candidate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Otherwise we risk our reputation being damaged by the obvious omission of perfectly good information. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 09:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.